Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- From: "J. Horta" <bite@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:46:48 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:22:46 +0000, Brit wrote:
Hi,
What can you say about the QM Consistent Histories interpretation.
Do you agree with it or not and why?
http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.html
What is the relationship of consistent histories and standard
quantum mechanics (as found in textbooks)?
I can't for the life of me figure out what an "interpretation" of QM
is. Why do people feel QM needs extra interpretation beyond this
is the formalism and this is how to use it? Is GR interpreted?
Classical mechanics? Seems to me each is a system of rules that
applies to observed phenomena that people have ferreted out by
lots of hard work.
Regards
Paul Colby
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- From: Fizyk
- Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- From: John Bell
- Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Neutrino mass
- Next by Date: Re: Entanglement (was Podkletnov) revisited?
- Previous by thread: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- Next by thread: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|